Sinful Car Ride?

[ddarko]

Illegal downloading of music from the Internet can have serious consequences. Some production houses within the music industry are taking this theft very seriously. Here are a couple of articles from recent years:

guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/jun/25/newmedia.netmusic

independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/virgin-warns-illegal-downloaders-stop-or-face-prosecution-842086.html

And my favorite, a college warning students about the dangers of stealing music illegally online:

messiah.edu/etc/downloading.html

Here are some quotes from the link noted above:

“The majority of entertainment files made available on the internet via “peer-to-peer” or file-sharing web sites are copyright protected, which makes “swapping” or downloading these songs and movies theft and a serious violation of U.S. copyright law- pure and simple.”

“…Increasingly frustrated by the rise of illegal downloading, the music and film industries have been making examples of individual file-swappers. This spring, the music industry filed suit against four college students across the country, seeking billions of dollars in damages. This week, the music industry filed more than 260 lawsuits against individuals whom they caught downloading copyrighted music files. And the fines can be steep - up to $150,000 for each pirated song or movie (the minimum fine is $750 per file).”

“…Online piracy has cut into national music sales by nearly a third since 1999, sending record and film revenues into a downward spiral, which hits everyone in the industry hard, from the record store clerks, songwriters, and technicians, to the artists themselves. Online piracy also hurts the development of new music, films, artists and talent. And once caught downloading illegal files, the legal and disciplinary process ultimately ends up hurting the individual downloader him or herself.”

Anyone that takes even a cursory glance at the evidence, include the courts, agrees that downloading illegal music from the Internet constitutes theft. To suggest otherwise, and ignore such warnings, could have serious repercussions, including prison time.

All this shows the music industry trying to tread on little people. Especially the first link about the mother and the kid. Is this the kind of stuff you want to show to advocate a decrease in piracy ?

People who support piracy love this type of news.

And I am curious Mr. Gerard, as a Christian, you don’t see anything wrong with the way the record companies handled the case in the first link? If anything, your links show the danger of getting caught and how mighty the music industry considers themselves. Talk about bullying people. Kind of ironic that you want to justify your point with these articles

God Bless

 

[GerardMajella]

All this shows the music industry trying to tread on little people.

No, it shows how serious and grave a matter it is to steal intellectual and copyrighted material, as well as the serious consequences of committing theft. Obviously, the courts and the law are on my side, as is evidenced from the articles cited. Online theft is a very serious matter, and can result in very serious repercussions.

So Mr. Gerard, lets show some intellect here in this argument without charging things are off topic.

War has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion under topic, which is a discussion on the immorality of theft and stealing. If you want to discuss war, start another thread.

Since you have denigrated this conversation into personal insults, name-calling, and personal attacks, instead of engaging in debate, I don’t see the point in continuing further.

It’s quite obvious that you don’t have the capacity to debate and discuss in a civil manner, what with comments insulting my homeland, calling me “naive” and “moronic”, my “head stuck up somewhere”, “show some intellect”, “doubting my intellect”, ad nauseum. You really need to clean up your act, pal, and learn some manners.

If you are truly Catholic, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating theft and stealing. And you should be ashamed at denigrating the conversation to the point of personal attacks and personal insults.

I will wrap up my final post in this thread with the following comments.

My position is straightforward:

I adhere to God’s commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” There are no exceptions, justifications, or rationalizations for theft. It is, and always has been, a sin of the gravest matter, within the Catholic Church, and within a wide variety of popular religions around the world.

As with any sin, the capacity and potential exists for petty theft to escalate into more serious sinful behavior. At first, criminals exposed to crime detest it. Then, they become familiar with it. Lastly, they embrace it. Online piracy is no different. The capacity exists for this sinful behavior to potentially escalate into further crimes.

The operational mode of theft – via online or in person – does not matter. We see criminals increasingly utilizing computers and technology to commit criminal acts, identity theft being one of the fastest growing crimes in our modern era.

In general, theft is recognized as a criminal act by the courts, as well as by social norms dating back to ancient human history. Online piracy, too, is theft, and a grave legal matter punishable by prison time and hefty fines.

You cannot justify theft based on “the music industry”, or “social injustice”, or “the wealth of the musician”, or due to “rebellion against the music industry”, or any other half-cocked, criminal rationalization.

We can agree to disagree. I have made my point loud and clear. Anyone reading this thread will understand my position. End of subject. Good day.

 

[ddarko]

No, it shows how serious and grave a matter it is to steal intellectual and copyrighted material, as well as the serious consequences of committing theft. Obviously, the courts and the law are on my side, as is evidenced from the articles cited. Online theft is a very serious matter, and can result in very serious repercussions.

This is laughable at best. Repercussions don’t show the goodness of an act. During WWII, if you sheltered a Jew, you could be put to death in Nazi Germany. Does that mean those people were doing a bad thing by sheltering Jews?

Come on Mr. Gerard, what is this?

War has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion under topic, which is a discussion on the immorality of theft and stealing. If you want to discuss war, start another thread.

I explained to you why I made the example of War. You seem quiet unable to make connections. What am I suppossed to do about that?

Since you have denigrated this conversation into personal insults, name-calling, and personal attacks, instead of engaging in debate, I don’t see the point in continuing further.

It’s quite obvious that you don’t have the capacity to debate and discuss in a civil manner, what with comments insulting my homeland, calling me “naive” and “moronic”, my “head stuck up somewhere”, “show some intellect”, “doubting my intellect”, ad nauseum. You really need to clean up your act, pal, and learn some manners.

Well what am I suppossed to say? If that’s how you come across, thats how it is. You can start addressing my arguments instead of keep saying “Piracy is wrong and everything is fine and dandy with the music business”.

If you are truly Catholic, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating theft and stealing. And you should be ashamed at denigrating the conversation to the point of personal attacks and personal insults.

Actually, I am not ashamed of anything. I don’t want to call something stealing when its not. That would be lying. As I said before, downloading music is not even intrinsically immoral.

About the personal insults and attacks, they were just pointing out flaws in your thinking. While I agree that it might have been a bit harsh its just the truth. You wouldn’t want me to lie now would you ?

I will wrap up my final post in this thread with the following comments.

My position is straightforward:

I adhere to God’s commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” There are no exceptions, justifications, or rationalizations for theft. It is, and always has been, a sin of the gravest matter, within the Catholic Church, and within a wide variety of popular religions around the world.

Who disagrees?

As with any sin, the capacity and potential exists for petty theft to escalate into more serious sinful behavior. At first, criminals exposed to crime detest it. Then, they become familiar with it. Lastly, they embrace it. Online piracy is no different. The capacity exists for this sinful behavior to potentially escalate into further crimes.

Online piracy is different. Your slippery slop argument is pointless. Also, there is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about downloading music.

The operational mode of theft – via online or in person – does not matter. We see criminals increasingly utilizing computers and technology to commit criminal acts, identity theft being one of the fastest growing crimes in our modern era.

Identity theft and Piracy are two different things. I really think you might not be aware how these things work in depth. The only thing they share in common is that they both use a computer.

In general, theft is recognized as a criminal act by the courts, as well as by social norms dating back to ancient human history. Online piracy, too, is theft, and a grave legal matter punishable by prison time and hefty fines.

Theft is a criminal act. But Piracy is not the same as theft. The music industry would love to hold it in the same criterion but it isn’t.

You cannot justify theft based on “the music industry”, or “social injustice”, or “the wealth of the musician”, or due to “rebellion against the music industry”, or any other half-cocked, criminal rationalization.

So let me get this straight, you don’t protest and disagree against your law when it comes to performing a same sex marriage? When people see injustice, they rebel. Sadly, its not always in the best way. This is what we have here. People have seen the injustice of the music industry and now they rebel. Sadly, they chose piracy as a means of rebelling. But as I made clear, this does not put the pirates OR the music industry off the hook. They are both responsible for the current state of affairs.

We can agree to disagree. I have made my point loud and clear. Anyone reading this thread will understand my position. End of subject. Good day.

Oh I understand your position. I am just saying its ignorant and biased.

God Bless

 

[Holly3278]

No, of course it is not a sin. You are not the one with the stolen music and you are not the one playing it. Therefore, you can’t be committing a sin. You are not responsible for the sins of others.

 

[Wowbagger]

Gerard, I made my original post – as I usually do – in a light-hearted attempt to demonstrate some of the more absurd extremes of our flawed copyright laws and perhaps to encourage a little more level-headed thinking and also charity in this discussion. However, three posts later, I must admit that you are genuinely starting to annoy me.

In addition, since you claim to be an expert on copyright law, please go ahead and provide the exact legal basis for your assertion, citing the specific article of the Berne Convention referring to “copying and pasting” in Internet forums.

Hardly an “expert”. However, I have read at least two or three articles on the subject in my life, which is clearly more than you’ve done. Here are the passages you demanded:

quote=Berne Convention, Article II The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.
[/quote]

§ 101. Definitions
…“Literary works” are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in which they are embodied.

The definition is unambiguous.

If you want to formally register the copyright for your last post, feel free to go to the Online Works registration circular @ copyright.gov. Of course, this is not necessary, because, per the Berne Convention, you automatically hold copyright over an item the moment you publish it:

quote=Berne Convention, Article V The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.
[/quote]

So far as I am aware, there have been no legal cases addressing the problem of internet forum postings in the United States, because (a) no one disputes author copyright, except as those copyrights are limited by the hosting website’s terms of service (such as Google Newsgroups’ TOS, which give Google the right to take control of anything you write), and (b) it would be very difficult to prove damages in a case over forum quotation (so an out-of-court cease-and-desist letter will usually suffice). Now, there was that case in China, but, although they established the (obvious) precedent that non-trivial forum postings are copyrighted to their authors, Chinese law is hardly binding here in the States.

On the other hand, downloading illegal music has resulted in legal action. Case example: Napster, which was shut down by court order.

A&M Records v. Napster (2001) only strengthens my point: Napster was not tried in criminal court for criminal theft, nor faced jail time or any other criminal penalties associated with theft, despite your bald assertions that illegal downloading is legally and morally directly equivalent to theft. Rather, Napster was sued in civil court for copyright infringement, for which they were (after a year in court) held liable for civil damages and subjected to a temporary injunction against the operation of their website.

No law, moral or civil, recognizes the moral equivalency you repeatedly attempt to draw. The only people who agree with you are the uninformed and the RIAA.

I find it entirely amusing that people on this thread enjoy personally attacking me for adhering to God’s commandments against stealing and theft. Interesting, especially on a Catholic forum, of all places. Who would have guessed?

To complain of ad hominem attacks where no ad hominems have been made is the last refuge of the disingenuous. To do so with an added barb questioning an interlocutor’s religious sincerity only adds a dash of hypocrisy.

 

[GerardMajella]

Hardly an “expert”. However, I have read at least two or three articles on the subject in my life, which is clearly more than you’ve done. Here are the passages you demanded:

So in other words, you are neither an expert in copyright law, and you cannot provide any specific references to cutting and pasting in Internet forums. That’s what I thought.

Let me reiterate what poster Mary Grail said about your totally ridiculous posts smearing me:

in your defense, all your quotes are cited. You quote…you are not taking others’ words and claiming them as your own. No way copywright infringement. If it were, students could not write term papers.

It’s a pretty bold accusation to accuse me of copyright infringement in a public forum, especially when it’s simply untrue.

Clearly, I have never once in this thread, or any other thread for that matter, taken other people’s words and claimed them as my own. Please cease and desist from defaming me on this forum.

No law, moral or civil, recognizes the moral equivalency you repeatedly attempt to draw.

Nonsense, I have already posted adequate proof to the contrary, citing numerous recent news articles showing how these online music thieves have been issued hefty fines ($750 per instance, minimum), and even threatened with imprisonment for committing online piracy of illegally downloaded music. Re-read the thread. It’s all there.

It’s a very serious crime, and the authorities are taking very strong action against this criminal behavior.

Try reading a couple of articles from recent years - I posted these links earlier in case you missed it:

guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/jun/25/newmedia.netmusic

independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/virgin-warns-illegal-downloaders-stop-or-face-prosecution-842086.html

And my favorite, a college warning students about the dangers of stealing music illegally online:

messiah.edu/etc/downloading.html

Here are some quotes from the link noted above:

“The majority of entertainment files made available on the internet via “peer-to-peer” or file-sharing web sites are copyright protected, which makes “swapping” or downloading these songs and movies theft and a serious violation of U.S. copyright law- pure and simple.” (Emphasis added) Comments: Read those words again: Theft. Serious violations of U.S. copyright law. (Again, what part of “Thou Shalt Not Steal”, don’t you understand?)

“…Increasingly frustrated by the rise of illegal downloading, the music and film industries have been making examples of individual file-swappers. This spring, the music industry filed suit against four college students across the country, seeking billions of dollars in damages. This week, the music industry filed more than 260 lawsuits against individuals whom they caught downloading copyrighted music files. And the fines can be steep - up to $150,000 for each pirated song or movie (the minimum fine is $750 per file).” (Emphasis addded) Comments: The law is clearly taking these violations very, very seriously, contrary to your “opinions” about these matters.

“…Online piracy has cut into national music sales by nearly a third since 1999, sending record and film revenues into a downward spiral, which hits everyone in the industry hard, from the record store clerks, songwriters, and technicians, to the artists themselves. Online piracy also hurts the development of new music, films, artists and talent. And once caught downloading illegal files, the legal and disciplinary process ultimately ends up hurting the individual downloader him or herself.” (Emphasis added)

To complain of ad hominem attacks where no ad hominems have been made is the last refuge of the disingenuous. To do so with an added barb questioning an interlocutor’s religious sincerity only adds a dash of hypocrisy.

Well, I am glad you’re annoyed. Next time, you should think twice about defaming and smearing others in a Catholic forum.

Your posts personally attacked and defamed me in this thread, accusing me of bogus allegations of copyright infringement. You and ddarko, while failing to engage in civil debate and discussion, have chosen to personally attack me simply because I stick to my principles, and won’t agree with your patently ridiculous support of criminal thievery, punishable by law, no less.

I refuse to engage further in this thread because of these monstrous attacks on me. Have a great day.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Nonsense. Anyone that has studied criminology knows that most criminals start out conducting petty crimes that eventually lead to more serious crimes. It only through early prevention and intervention can this kind of criminality be stopped before it escalates.

While it can happen that way, it usually doesn’t. I’ve downloaded music from Napster back when it was in question. I don’t go around stealing things today.a

Drug use is the same way. People start drinking, smoking. Then they test pot. If they continue, they will experiment further up the line into harder and harder drugs, such as crack and cocaine. Not everyone does this - granted – but heavy drug use starts gradually and builds. Few cocaine addicts have never smoked a cigarette or tried pot beforehand. Same concept.

That’s easily explainable. The “slippery slope” of drug use has more to do with what people are told about various substances. I remember all the horrible things that I was told would happen if one took a single puff of marijuana: instant addiction (a lie), total change of personality (a lie), etc. I know a lot of people who smoke the weed and haven’t seen that and know that I’ve been lied to. I’ve tried it and see that it was a lie. What one is told about weed (it make one a total loser who becomes a complete degenerate) turns out not to be true. After coming to that conclusion, one wonders whether or not the rest, i.e., what they say about real drugs (i.e., cocaine, cocaine’s analog crack, meth, heroine, etc.). Only through seeing what real drugs (i.e., cocaine, and its analog crack, meth, heroine, etc.) do to people and having some limited experience with some of those substances myself, and I know that it was true for the most part relative to those drugs. Kids aren’t stupid. You lie to a kid and lose all credibility. Lie about weed and they’ll never believe you about real drugs. At least that’s my experience.

 

[Wowbagger]

Let me reiterate what poster Mary Grail said about your totally ridiculous posts smearing me:

in your defense, all your quotes are cited. You quote…you are not taking others’ words and claiming them as your own. No way copywright infringement. If it were, students could not write term papers.

The rest of your – rather unhinged – post aside, this is actually amusing.

If the nature of copyright infringement is “taking other people’s words [or works] and claiming them as one’s own,” then practically no one in history has ever committed copyright infringement! Have you ever met an illegal downloader who downloaded an NSync song and “claimed it as his own”? No, of course not! That is a crazy definition of copyvio!

We can determine the real nature of copyright infringement by looking at the word (or, for that matter, a dictionary): it is the unauthorized copying of another author’s work. “Citation” never enters into it.

And, of course, if you’ve ever met an academic dean, you know how fuzzy the line is between fair use citation and plagiarism in college-level papers.

Your posts personally attacked and defamed me in this thread, accusing me of bogus allegations of copyright infringement. You and ddarko, while failing to engage in civil debate and discussion, have chosen to personally attack me simply because I stick to my principles, and won’t agree with your patently ridiculous support of criminal thievery, punishable by law, no less.

Now, nothing I’ve said is remotely defamatory. It’s just a statement of law and a bit of light teasing. The fact that you think my interpretation of Berne is “monstrous” is so overwrought that it again crosses the line from “annoying” to “hilarious.”

However, your claim that I support “criminal theivery, punishable by law,” actually is defamatory. Not only is illegal downloading of music not criminal theft (and you have yet to cite one case where it was treated as if it were), but I don’t even support it! I think illegal downloading is (at the very least) morally problematic and (at the very least) often sinful. I only started criticizing you in this thread, not because I disagree with your basic conclusions about the morality of the act, but because I thought you had forgotten charity in a fit of passion and needed to be reminded of that virtue with a bit of light ribbing and a bit of a thought experiment.

It seems, however, that no amount of teasing or argument was going to remind you of charity.

I, too, will bow out of this thread now. Cheerio!

I refuse to engage further in this thread because of these monstrous attacks on me. Have a great day.

 

[GerardMajella]

unauthorized copying of another author’s work

Kind of like downloading and copying a musician’s work for your own personal use without paying for it, right?

Now, nothing I’ve said is remotely defamatory.

You falsely accused me of copyright infringement. That’s defamatory.

The rest of your – rather unhinged – post aside, this is actually amusing.

I’m glad you find it amusing and enjoyable to defame and personally attack others in a Catholic forum of all places.

It speaks volumes about your character, or rather, lack of it.

The fact that you think my interpretation of Berne is “monstrous” is so overwrought that it again crosses the line from “annoying” to “hilarious.”

I said your defamation of me in a public forum was monstrous. And so it is.

I could care less about your misinterpretations of the Berne convention. You’ve already admitted that you are not an expert on copyright law, which throws your entire argument down the drain altogether.

Not only is illegal downloading of music not criminal theft

It is criminal theft, punishable by imprisonment and heavy fines. You are clearly mistaken.

Again, simply read the articles I posted for you, or do your own Google search. You don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Since you are so big into “thought experiments”, why don’t you go ahead and illegally download a few thousand songs this coming month, and see if the authorities show up at your door? Since you are so confident, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is, pal.

I don’t even support it! I think illegal downloading is (at the very least) morally problematic and (at the very least) often sinful.

You have a strange way of agreeing with me. Whatever, dude.

I only started criticizing you in this thread

Here is your written admission of criticizing and attacking me on a personal level, instead of sticking to the debate and discussion at hand. You even admit it. How very Christian and Catholic of you. Thanks.

but because I thought you had forgotten charity in a fit of passion and needed to be reminded of that virtue with a bit of light ribbing and a bit of a thought experiment.

Here’s a “thought experiment” for you: Don’t defame others in a public forum.

Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread and see the personal insults, personal attacks, and rudeness leveled against me in this thread.

I have never once in this thread made personal insults against anyone, so your claim of “fits of passion” are patently false. (Why should I be surprised? It’s par for the course with you.)

I, too, will bow out of this thread now. Cheerio!

Great idea. Next time, keep your insults and false accusations to yourself, thank you.